As per the case facts, a company was incorporated under the Companies Act and later converted into a Public Limited Company. The present appeals arise from a common judgment and ... order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed appeals and upheld an order passed by the Whole Time Member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the tribunal's dismissal. The question arose whether certain individuals communicated Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) to other appellants, and if these recipients could be considered "immediate relatives" or otherwise connected for the purpose of such communication. Finally, the Supreme Court found that while it was alleged that UPSI was communicated, the recipients were not "immediate relatives" and were financially independent of the alleged communicator. The Court also noted that the individuals had no involvement in decision-making processes related to securities or other matters concerning the communicator. Furthermore, the argument regarding the same residential address was dismissed, as the parties were residing in separate buildings on a large tract of land, which negated the implication of close association. The Supreme Court's ruling suggests a stricter interpretation of insider trading rules, focusing on genuine connections and financial dependencies rather than mere familial ties or shared property, unless direct involvement in decision-making or financial interdependence is established.